The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

I've been waiting to see this movie for so long . . . about twenty-eight years, I'd guess. I would have gone to the theater weeks ago, except Hud was doing this weird passive-aggressive thing where he didn't want me to go see the movie without him, but he really didn't want to go see the movie. So I finally went by myself on the way home from work yesterday.

Side note: why do people pity me for going to see a movie by myself? I ran into Hud's cousin in the popcorn line, and he acted so sorry for me when he heard I was there alone. It's not like I don't have friends and family. (In that case, I would be pitiable.) Going to a movie alone is actually quite nice. Although I would have preferred a slightly less crowded theater where I wouldn't have had to fight strangers for armrests.

Anyway. About the movie. I know I'm a big fat Narnia nerd, but I got all choked up just seeing the Dawn Treader come to life up there on the big screen. It was absolutely perfect. Every tiny last detail of it.

As far as being true to the book, the ship was just about the only thing that was perfect. I could probably go on and on and on about the changes they made for the movie, as they were legion, but I'll just mention the ones that disappointed me the most.

First, the lack of surprise when Lucy and Caspian recognized each other, as if it were an everyday occurrence. Their greeting was almost as mundane as, "Oh, it's you, how nice." This struck me like the beginning of the second movie when they glossed over one of my favorite parts. ("I wonder who used to live here? I think we did!")

Second, there were a few lines from the book I really wished they'd used in the movie. Of course now the only one that comes to mind was when Eustace wandered off on Dragon Island. No matter how hard I willed it, I could not get Edmund to say, "Where's that blighter Eustace?"

Finally, while it was a nice lead-in to the next movie when Jill Pole was mentioned at the end of this one (and to be honest it gave me a thrill to hear her name), it's hard to believe she would have been friendly enough with pre-transformation Eustace to stop by his house.

I am torn between horror at the bastardization of the book and a grudging concession that they actually improved upon the storyline. The book always was just a long string of adventures, one after another, but the movie added more of a driving force (the evil green mist) and wove the different parts of the story together more tightly than the way they're found in the book.

I wrestled with this movie because it wasn't exactly like the book, but if I could look at the movie as its own entity I would have to admit they did a beautiful job with it. Everything in the movie looked wonderful, and the story was thrilling and exciting. Eustace was so perfectly, appallingly Eustace-like. And I loved how they used the old Pauline Baynes illustrations from the book during the credits at the end.

I had to see this movie in 3D because I waited too long and they're no longer showing it in 2D (which I tend to prefer, because I'm a cheapskate and I am convinced that 3D movies are just a ploy to milk more money from the moviegoing public). It's my opinion that the third dimension didn't add much to this movie. I mean, sure, it looked great, but beyond the uncomfortable granny glasses, I usually forgot to even notice the extra depth. But I finally got to see the movie, and that's what counts.

And . . . The Silver Chair is supposed to come out sometime this year! I can't wait!!

Easy Virtue

How not to get my husband to watch a movie: when he asks what it's about, tell him, "I think it's about an American girl in the 1800s who marries an Englishman and they have problems and smoke a lot." Of course, as it turns out, it's actually set in the 20th century (maybe the 1920s or 30s?), but I don't think that would have made a difference to Hud.

At least it was far more light-hearted than I expected. I thought this movie was going to be all serious and dramatic and angst-ridden. I figured it was much in the same vein as last night's The Age of Innocence, but I couldn't have been more wrong. The couples switcheroo at the end was entirely predictable, but that is acceptable in a movie that Mandy warned I should go into with very, very low expectations.

By the way, I'm not doing so well in carrying out Fright Month, am I. In case you were especially worried about that, let me reassure you that I plan to get on with the scary stuff next week.

Dorian Gray

Is it bad that I pick movies based on the cute boys who are in them? Ben Barnes is not hard to look at. Except when he is raptly gazing about London with such an expression of naive innocence that he seems to be putting on an act. (Which he is, of course, but we are not supposed to be reminded of this fact while watching a movie.)

But Ben Barnes is not the only reason I watched this movie. We're back to that compulsion of watching every available film adaptation of the books I read.

It's difficult to avoid comparing the movie to the excellent book. Where the book was more nuanced and subtle, the movie was more creepified and overt. The book was intriguing and thought-provoking, but the movie took the book's concept and created what might almost be called a horror movie (or at least a thriller) out of it. The basic story is the same, and I even recognized a couple of direct quotes from the book, but overall the movie is given that distinct Hollywood sheen.

Not that this is entirely a bad thing. The movie made use of aspects of the medium that are not available in print, and this is as it should be. If a movie has nothing to add, why even make it in the first place? Anyway, as book-to-movie adaptations go, they did a fairly good job with this one; and, when I attempt to look at the movie as its own entity, I think it makes a perfectly entertaining and enjoyable way to spend an evening. Especially if you get to drink a glass of wine while watching.

Stardust

Here's a movie I'd never heard of before, which is somewhat surprising, as it has several big stars in it (no pun intended, of course), like Michelle Pfeiffer and Robert DeNiro. It was recommended to me by my friend Mandy. (Hi, Mandy!) Mandy and I tend to enjoy the same sorts of books, but this is the first of several movies she's suggested I watch, so I approached it with a bit of skepticism. I had the intention of formulating my opinion of Mandy's film recommendations based on this one.

I can officially assure you that Mandy has good taste in movies. This one was weirdness like Gormenghast wrapped up in a fairy tale like The Princess Bride (although I can't say it was quite as good as the latter, maybe only because--though it did have its moments of humor--it lacked what I insist on calling the comic genius of S. Morganstern). But it did have a great story and was fun to watch. I'm pretty sure my favorite character was Arthur Weasley as Billy the goat, although he was closely followed by Captain Shakespeare the Prissy Pirate.

As long as you can stand a bit of predictability (the ride is still fun even if you know what's coming) and a small number of ridiculously fortuitous events, you need to watch this movie. Just be glad you don't have to hear me or my husband shouting out our (annoyingly accurate) guesses as to what will happen next. And be glad you don't have to watch it with my cousin Lori who would make fun of you for using the word fortuitous.